REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. (REMMAN), and
CRISPIN E. LAT are adjoining landowners in Barangay Bugtong Na Pulo, Lipa
City. The land of Lat containing an area of 1.8 hectares is agricultural and
planted mostly with fruit trees while REMMAN occupies a land area of fifteen
(15) hectares six (6) hectares of which are devoted to its piggery business.
REMMAN's land is one and a half (1Ĺ) meters higher in elevation than that of
respondent Lat.

Sometime in July 1984 Lat noticed that
REMMAN's waste disposal lagoon was already overflowing and inundating
one-fourth (1/4) of Lat's plantation. He made several representations with
REMMAN but they fell on deaf ears. On 14 March 1985, after almost one (1)
hectare of Lat's plantation was already inundated with water containing pig
manure, as a result of which the trees growing on the flooded portion started
to wither and die, Lat filed a complaint for damages with preliminary mandatory
injunction against REMMAN. Lat alleged that the acidity of the soil in his
plantation increased because of the overflow of the water heavy with pig manure
from REMMAN's piggery farm.

REMMAN denied all the allegations of Lat and
raised as an affirmative defense that measures such as the construction of
additional lagoons were already adopted to contain the waste water coming from
its piggery to prevent any damage to the adjoining estates.

After conducting an ocular inspection and
evaluating the evidence of both parties the Regional Trial Court found that
indeed REMMANís waste disposal lagoon overflowed with the contaminated water
flooding one (1) hectare of Lat's plantation. The waste water was ankle-deep
and caused death and destruction to one (1) jackfruit tree, fifteen (15)
coconut trees, one hundred twenty-two (122) coffee trees, and an unspecified
number of mango trees, bananas and vegetables. As a consequence, the trial
court ordered REMMAN to indemnify Lat P186,975.00 for lost profits for
three (3) crop years and P30,000.00 as attorney's fees.[1] marie

The decision of the court a quo was
affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.[2]

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari
REMMAN prays that we pass upon the findings of the trial court as well as
of the appellate court. REMMAN insists that factual findings of lower courts
may be passed upon, reviewed and reversed: (a) when the conclusion is a finding
grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (b) when the
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (c) when there is
grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension
of facts; (e) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would
justify a different conclusion; (f) when the conclusions of the Court of
Appeals are not supported by the evidence on record; (g) when facts of substance
were overlooked which, if correctly considered, might have changed the outcome
of the case; and, (h) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are not in
accord with what reasonable men would readily accept are the correct inferences
from the evidence extant in the records.[3]

Indeed, in the abovementioned instances, the
factual milieu of a particular case may be passed upon, reversed or modified by
this Court. But examination of the record reveals that all the above instances
are unavailing. From this point of view alone the instant petition is
dismissible. Nevertheless, we shall discuss them hereunder to dispose finally
of the contentions of REMMAN.

First, REMMAN
argues that its liability for the damages suffered by Lat was not clearly
established.

We disagree. During the ocular inspection
conducted by the lower court where representatives of both parties were
present, it was established that the waste water containing pig manure was
continuously flowing from REMMAN's piggery farm to Lat's plantation. The water
was ankle-deep and flooded one (1) hectare of Lat's plantation. The overflow of
the "acidic, malodorous and polluted water" continued from June 1984
to March 1985 thus destroying one (1) jackfruit tree, fifteen (15) coconut
trees, one hundred an twenty-two (122) coffee trees, and an unspecified number
of mango trees, bananas and vegetables.[4]

In addition, the appellate court found that
there was indeed negligence on the part of REMMAN which directly caused the
damage to the plantation of Lat. Thus -novero

x x x Negligence
was clearly established. It is uncontroverted that the land of appellee was
flooded on account of the overflow of acidic, malodorous and polluted water
coming from the adjacent piggery farm of appellant sometime in May 1984. This resulted
in the impairment of the productivity of appellee's land as well as the
eventual destruction and death of several fruit trees, such as coconuts,
coffee, jackfruits, bananas and other plants x x x x Appellant cannot avoid
liability because their negligence was the proximate cause of the damage.
Appellee's property was practically made a catch-basin of polluted water and
other noxious substances emptying from appellant's piggery which could have
been prevented had it not been for the negligence of appellant arising from
its: (a) failure to monitor the increases in the level of water in the lagoons
before, during and after the heavy downpours which occurred during the rainy
months of 1984; (b) failure to augment the existing lagoons prior to the incident,
notwithstanding the fact that at the time of the flooding, the piggery had
grown to a capacity of 11,000 heads, and considering that it was reasonably
forseeable that the existing waste disposal facilities were no longer adequate
to accomodate the increasing volume of waste matters in such a big farm; and
more importantly, (c) the repeated failure to comply with their promise to
appellee.[5]

Second, REMMAN
argues that the trial court as well as the Court of Appeals should not have
rejected its request for the production of Lat's income tax returns. According
to REMMAN had Lat's income tax returns been produced, the issue of the alleged
damages suffered by Lat would have been settled.

This argument is moot, if not trite. For
this matter has been laid to rest when we affirmed the Court of Appeals'
decision in an earlier case involving the same parties.[6] In sustaining the trial court's quashal of the
subpoena duces tecum previously issued compelling Lat to produce his
income tax returns for the years 1982-1986, the appellate court explained that
the production of the income tax returns would not necessarily serve to prove
the special and affirmative defenses set up by REMMAN nor rebut Lat's testimony
regarding the losses he sustained due to the piggery. The tax returns per se
could not reflect the total amount of damages suffered by Lat, as income
losses from a portion of the plantation could be offset by any profit derived
from the rest of the plantation or from other sources of income. Conversely,
losses incurred from other sources of income would be totally unrelated to the
income from the particular portion of the plantation flooded with waste matter
coming from REMMAN's piggery.[7]

Third, REMMAN contends that the damages allegedly
sustained by Lat have not been satisfactorily established. nigel

We a not convinced. The factual findings of
the court a quo rightly support its conclusions on this respect -

Coming now to the
issue of damages, We find appellant's allegations not well-taken. Appellant contends
that actual and compensatory damages require evidentiary proof, and there being
no evidence presented as to the necessity of the award for damages, it was
erroneous for the lower court to have made such award. It must be remembered
that after the ocular inspection, the court a quo rendered an inventory of dead
and rotten trees and plants found in appellee's property. Appellee also
testified on the approximate annual harvest and fair market value thereof.
Significantly, no opposition or controverting evidence was presented by
appellant on the matter. Hence, appellant is bound thereby and cannot now be
heard to complain. As correctly held by the court a quo:

An ocular
inspection has been conducted by the trial court. The inventory of the trees
damaged and the itemized valuation placed therein by private respondent after
the ocular inspection which is not rebutted by the petitioner, is the more
accurate indicator of the said amount prayed for as damages. If the valuation
is indeed unreasonable, petitioner should present controverting evidence of the
fair market value of the crops involved. The trial court held that the private
respondent himself had been subjected to extensive cross and re-cross
examination by the counsel for the petitioner on the amount of damages.[8]

Finally, REMMAN
complains that the damages, if any, were due to a fortuitous event.

Again cannot agree with petitioner. We defer
instead to the findings opinions expressed by the lower courts -

Even assuming that
the heavy rains constituted an act of God, by reason of their negligence, the
fortuitous event became humanized, rendering appellants liable for the ensuing
damages. In National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 649
(1993), the Supreme Court held: ella

Accordingly, petitioners
cannot be heard to invoke the act of God or force majeure to escape liability
for the loss or damage sustained by private respondents since they, the
petitioners, were guilty of negligence. This event then was not occasioned
exclusively by an act of God or force majeure; a human factor - negligence or
imprudence - had intervened. The effect then of the force majeure in question
may be deemed to have, even if only partly, resulted from the participation of
man. Thus, the whole occurrence was thereby humanized, as it were, and removed
from the rules applicable to acts of God.

As regards the
alleged natural easement imposed upon the property of appellee, resort to
pertinent provisions of applicable law is imperative. Under the Civil Code, it
is provided:

Art. 637. Lower
estates are obliged to receive the waters which naturally and without the
intervention of man descend from the higher estates, as well as the stones or
earth which they carry with them.

The owner of the
lower estate cannot construct works which will impede this easement; neither
can the owner of the higher estate make works which will increase the burden.

A similar
provision is found in the Water Code of the Philippines (P.D. No.1067), which
provides:

Art. 50. Lower
estates are obliged to receive the water which naturally and without the
intervention of man flow from the higher estates, as well as the stone or earth
which they carry with them.

The owner of the
lower estate cannot construct works which will impede this natural flow, unless
he provides an alternative method of drainage; neither can the owner of the
higher estate make works which will increase this natural flow. marinella

As worded, the two
(2) aforecited provisions impose a natural easement upon the lower estate to
receive the waters which naturally and without the intervention of man descend
from higher states. However, where the waters which flow from a higher state
are those which are artificially collected in man-made lagoons, any damage
occasioned thereby entitles the owner of the lower or servient estate to
compensation.[9]

On the basis of the foregoing discussion, it
is crystal clear that REMMAN is directly accountable to Lat for the damages
sustained by him. The negligence of REMMAN in maintaining the level of waste water
in its lagoons has been satisfactorily established. The extent of damages
suffered by Lat remains unrebutted; in fact, has been proved.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The 19 October 1995 Decision
of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Regional Trial Court-Br. 16,
Lipa City, holding petitioner Remman Enterprises, Inc. (REMMAN) liable to
private respondent Crispin E. Lat for damages and to indemnify the latter P186,975.00
for lost profits for three (3) crop years and P30,000.00 as attorneys fees,
is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.